Speech and harassment
So, ONTD_P is going rounds (me included) over the case of the kid at a community college who got his ass chewed for a bigoted pro-prop-8 speech in a class.
One of the big issues that's stumping folks (though it shouldn't) is the concept of whether espousing the point of view that gays don't deserve basic rights is a political opinion or bigotry. Honestly, that question should be resolved. Substitute any other oppressed class, and it's pretty clear. It IS bigotry, and frankly, it's kind of ridiculous that people who consider themselves liberal wouldn't get this. Any denial of basic human rights based on someone's biological status is bigotry. End of story. Human rights are not up for debate in a country that supposedly values these things.
That resolved, what we're left with is two legal questions:
1. Whether expressions of anti-gay bigotry can be considered harassment and thus can be limited by law
and
2. Whether the government has a right to restrict speech of any kind in a classroom situation
I believe that the legal issue in #1 has yet to be fully resolved, but the issue in #2 has been resolved several times over: Government ability to restrict time, place and manner of speech is quite broad. Restricting classroom speech to that which does not cause a hostile learning environment is thus something that would theoretically be legal.
Also, there IS precedent for government restriction of the content of speech as well, albeit in more limited circumstances: Incitements to violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. And of course, libel, obscenity and copyright infringement are restricted. All of these are content issues that the government has clearly established control over.
Additionally, anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws have been put to constitutional tests time and time again and have come clean. Private entities, of course, have the right to limit speech any way they want, but government also has a right to step in and limit it--even on private property--when it constitutes illegal harassment. It's been made clear, for instance, that graphic discussions of sex on the job violate sexual harassment laws because they create a hostile work environment.
Thus, it's not a stretch to infer that graphic advocacy of bigotry would create a hostile learning environment and thus constitute harassment. An academic discussion about varying sides of a human rights issue is one thing. But direct advocacy of a bigoted position, especially if done in a confrontational way (as was apparently the case here) is something else entirely.
Without knowing the full context of what the student said, it's not possible to say, without any doubt, that what the student said would've constituted a violation of school policy and state anti-discrimination laws. But it's certainly not out of the question that that could've happened (and given the reaction of the prof and students, it's quite likely), and that holding him responsible for those violations would be perfectly legal, as far as SCOTUS precedent goes.
One of the big issues that's stumping folks (though it shouldn't) is the concept of whether espousing the point of view that gays don't deserve basic rights is a political opinion or bigotry. Honestly, that question should be resolved. Substitute any other oppressed class, and it's pretty clear. It IS bigotry, and frankly, it's kind of ridiculous that people who consider themselves liberal wouldn't get this. Any denial of basic human rights based on someone's biological status is bigotry. End of story. Human rights are not up for debate in a country that supposedly values these things.
That resolved, what we're left with is two legal questions:
1. Whether expressions of anti-gay bigotry can be considered harassment and thus can be limited by law
and
2. Whether the government has a right to restrict speech of any kind in a classroom situation
I believe that the legal issue in #1 has yet to be fully resolved, but the issue in #2 has been resolved several times over: Government ability to restrict time, place and manner of speech is quite broad. Restricting classroom speech to that which does not cause a hostile learning environment is thus something that would theoretically be legal.
Also, there IS precedent for government restriction of the content of speech as well, albeit in more limited circumstances: Incitements to violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. And of course, libel, obscenity and copyright infringement are restricted. All of these are content issues that the government has clearly established control over.
Additionally, anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws have been put to constitutional tests time and time again and have come clean. Private entities, of course, have the right to limit speech any way they want, but government also has a right to step in and limit it--even on private property--when it constitutes illegal harassment. It's been made clear, for instance, that graphic discussions of sex on the job violate sexual harassment laws because they create a hostile work environment.
Thus, it's not a stretch to infer that graphic advocacy of bigotry would create a hostile learning environment and thus constitute harassment. An academic discussion about varying sides of a human rights issue is one thing. But direct advocacy of a bigoted position, especially if done in a confrontational way (as was apparently the case here) is something else entirely.
Without knowing the full context of what the student said, it's not possible to say, without any doubt, that what the student said would've constituted a violation of school policy and state anti-discrimination laws. But it's certainly not out of the question that that could've happened (and given the reaction of the prof and students, it's quite likely), and that holding him responsible for those violations would be perfectly legal, as far as SCOTUS precedent goes.